Wikipedia:Peer review/Common toad/archive1

Common toad[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just been granted GA status and I am interested in taking it to FA. It was an article of 250 words when I started expanding it 3 months ago so it is nearly all "my own work"! Thanks, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wer900:

As far as sourcing is concerned, I have no objections to the article. Everything looks legitimate and I believe that the good article reviewer(s) have taken appropriate care of any sourcing issues which may have existed previously. In terms of overall large-scale organization there are no issues, as the headings are laid out quite nicely and are at the appropriate level. On a smaller scale, though, there are numerous issues with sentence structure, such as choppiness or multiple structures in one sentence. Also, some sentences are in the wrong places in their paragraphs. Here are some examples:

Small, fast moving prey may be caught by a flick of the tongue while larger items are grabbed with the jaws. Having no teeth, it swallows food whole in a series of gulps.^[14] It does not recognise its prey as such but will try to consume any small, dark coloured, moving object it encounters at night. A research study showed that it would snap at a moving 1 cm (0.4 in) piece of black paper as if it were prey but would disregard a larger moving piece.^[16]

Thank you for your comments. I will work on this aspect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be updated

Comments by FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just mentioning Ireland and Iceland as places in Northern Europe the toad cannot be found, wouldn't "islands in the North Atlantic" or some such be better? Since there are many other islands than these two where toads cannot be found. Or maybe those islands (Faroe Islands, Hebrides, Shetland, Orkney, so on) are counted with the countries they belong to? Because the Mediterranean islands all seem to be mentioned by name. I changed this but on further thoughts I changed it back. Ireland is a nation and Iceland is a significant land mass rather than an offshore island. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It is one of a group of closely related taxa that are descended from a common ancestral line and which form a species complex." What does closely related taxa refer to here? Different Bufo species, or the subspecies within Bufo bufo?This is a bit difficult as I lack good source material.
The lead could perhaps need some more wikilinks for terms such as metamorphosis, tadpoles and witchcraft, and maybe the less obvious facts could be sourced. Done.
The article itself could also need some more wikilinks, for example when other animals are mentioned, such as Bufo viridis, and words such as fecundity.
There seems to be inconsistency on whether the different taxa mentioned in the article are species or subspecies. I understand that this is because their relationships are unclear, but I think it would be better to stick to one classification, instead of for example mentioning a taxon as B. b. spinosus in one sentence and then as B. spinosus in another. There also seems to be some confusion about B. b. japonicus, which is mentioned as a subspecies in the taxonomy section, but isn't listed along with the others below it, and further down in the article, it is simply B. japonicus. But there isn't really an explanation of why.This is a bit difficult as I lack good source material.
If the subspecies have common names, it could be nice to list them along with their Latin names in the subspecies section.
Two of the subspecies have no info as to who named them. I need to find further sources.
Synonyms of Bufo bufo and its subspecies (Rana bufo, Bufo colchicus, etc.) could be placed in the taxobox. I need to find further sources.
The subspecies names should redirect to this article. Done.
If possible, it would be nice to identify which subspecies are shown in the pictures, but I'm aware this is an almost impossible task.
Maybe the length of the tongue could be mentioned? And after looking at pictures, I wondered if the variation in colour occurs within subspecies?
As for references, it seems that two ways of citing authors are used (full names, along with last name followed by initial), and there seems to be inconsistency in dating (year alone coupled with year and month). I'm not sure how important this inconsistency is, but it's there. It seems a pity to miss out first name if I know them but in some instances I don't.
As I mentioned on the talk page, it would be good to remove the sentence claiming the article is only about the Northern subspecies, even if most info applies to it. And maybe some of the stuff in the culture section should be removed if it is from areas where the common toad doesn't actually exist.
The sound clip of the call would be a nice addition. And maybe a photo showing its camouflage or other behaviour. Better taxobox image could probably be found.I like the taxobox image, it's full of character!.
You should try using the {{Cite doi|doi of your source}} template, it is very easy, and fills out all the info for you. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I tried cite doi and it is very clever, but it does not put the species name in italics so is limited to articles without species names in the title.[reply]

Apart from that, great article! FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and for adding the witch image to the article. I will work on the points you raise but really need to find further information from other sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and by the way, I think you can work around the taxonomy issue by stating clearly that it is presently unresolved and why, no one expects the article to somehow find a solution to the problems of toad taxonomy. A brief mention of the alternative classifications would be enough. As I mentioned on my talk page, this article by Darren Naish seems to have some good citations.[1] The Naish article also mentions that the common toad is sexually dimorphic when it comes to colour, I think that would be important to mention here. As for the taxobox image, yeah, it does have character, so no problem, I was only thinking of showing it clearly, but other images in the article do that. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps toad should be wikilinked somewhere, so it is explained it isn't a natural group. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for automatic DOI sometimes showing things wrong, that's the good thing, there's a small edit button under the citation in the ref section, if you see an error, you can manually fix it by pushing edit. I did that in several of the Dodo citations, where it for example showed the date a 19th century article was first published on the web, instead of when it first appeared in print. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC) It's useful to know that - I must use cite doi more often.[reply]

Comments by Little Jerry

I can guarantee that Answers.com will not be accepted as a reliable source for a FA status article. Same for refs [28], [29], [35] and [39]. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I'm sure you are right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would make a better source for road mortality and this for toads and witchcraft. LittleJerry (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I have used them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll still have to get rid of those others. LittleJerry (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]